32,238
edits
User talk:Hardrock182: Difference between revisions
→"Rear quarter view"."rear view"
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
Been noticing these changes here and there. Not to be too particular, but isn't "rear quarter view" technically accurate? It does refer to a rear-side view, while "rear view" may referring more to a view directly from behind the vehicle. - [[User:ZS|ZS]] 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | Been noticing these changes here and there. Not to be too particular, but isn't "rear quarter view" technically accurate? It does refer to a rear-side view, while "rear view" may referring more to a view directly from behind the vehicle. - [[User:ZS|ZS]] 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Yes, "rear quarter view" is the technical way of saying it, but I just felt that "rear view" was enough to describe the picture. If you prefer to use "rear quarter view" then I'm not stopping you, but I doubt the average viewer of the article is really bothered about the exact type of image that is being used. And to be honest, a decent front view of each vehicle - which is what you've been providing - is all that's really necessary for the article. [[User:Hardrock182|Hardrock182]] 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | :Yes, "rear quarter view" is the technical way of saying it, but I just felt that "rear view" was enough to describe the picture. If you prefer to use "rear quarter view" then I'm not stopping you, but I doubt the average viewer of the article is really bothered about the exact type of image that is being used. And to be honest, a decent front view of each vehicle - which is what you've been providing - is all that's really necessary for the article. [[User:Hardrock182|Hardrock182]] 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
::I'm sticking to "rear quarter", and using "rear" for shots on the rear only. On the topic of thumbnail descriptions, these screenshots were taken in way to maximize the number of variants that can be illustrated in the articles. Shortening them creates a situation where another editor may be misled to believe this just another redundancy and simply remove it. Besides, if readers find the thumbnail captions too long, they can skip it, but to have them removed outright eliminates clarity. What do we have to lose with detailed descriptions?<p>Also, the rear shot may be used as identification (i.e. when you need to spot one of them in game) and a reference point when describing the vehicle's design, so I see nothing wrong having both front and rear shots in the article (with several exceptions). - [[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||